Ever since I’ve been aware of Piers Corbyn I’ve found him extremely confusing. Simply because what he says is so at odds with what we know in science, and because he’s very secretive about how arrives at his conclusions.
What I’m referring to are the weather predictions he makes via his company WeatherAction. What his company does is make long-term weather forecasts based on solar activity, the earth’s magnetic field, and the moon’s orbit. He calls it the Solar-Lunar-Action-Technique, or SLAT for short. He claims he gets a high rate of success with this technique and can predict the weather up to a year in advance; but I’m not convinced.
The problem is that what he uses for his predictions, like the sun, has at best a minor effect on weather and our climate. This is well known in the scientific community, yet he claims it has a big effect. But it’s also Corbyn that claims this high accuracy, there’s actually very little out there that hints at there being any skill to his predictions.
His predictions are also extremely vague, like forecasting heavy rain. Which leaves you to wonder how much rain would mean a successful forecast. It’s vague predictions like this why most people ignore Corbyn, but it doesn’t stop some folks from taking a look at how skilful his predictions are. Suffice to say that almost always his predictions are wrong. Which makes him mostly irrelevant to the field of weather forecasting.
But he is sometimes mentioned by climate science deniers as Corbyn also comments on global warming via his company (from the homepage of WeatherAction, archived here):
WeatherAction is involved in the Global Warming /Climate Change debate where we point out that the world is now cooling not warming and there is no observational evidence in the thousands and millions of years of data that changes in CO2 have any effect on weather or climate. There are no scientists in the world who can produce such observational data.
Bold statement when we know the planet isn’t cooling and we have mountains of evidence of how CO2 either causes or amplifies a change in temperature. It ignores the very basic finding that CO2 traps heat, something you can measure in a laboratory. It doesn’t matter if these changes in temperature were directly observed or not. By the same logic a criminal didn’t murder someone because there are no witnesses, despite other evidence showing this being the case.
This report and the build-up to it is a carefully choreographed self-referencing political game by Climate Change parasites which contains nothing of substance and is constructed to conceal the facts.
Lovely language, but it again ignores reality. For one it’s not a “self-referencing political game” as the report by the IPCC cites over 9,000 scientific reports for their latest release. But lets see what Corbyn provides to support this statement:
ALL THE DIRE PREDICTIONS of the CO2 warmists since 2000 have failed.
No, they haven’t. As the IPCC isn’t in the business of making predictions, they make projections. These projections give a range of what we might expect in a certain period, they don’t predict what the climate will be in one specific year. Also so far the IPCC projections have proven to be very accurate.
THE “ADMISSION” of a ‘a pause in warming’ over the last 15 years is itself a cover-up for the fact that ONLY THEIR FRAUDULENT DATA shows any ‘warming’ at all in the period.
It’s not their data, the IPCC uses temperature datasets that others created; one of them being HadCRUT. If you use the Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator you’ll notice that HadCRUT, GISTEMP, NOAA, BEST (land only) and UAH (satellite) all show warming. The only exception being the RSS satellite temperature dataset.
But all that is besides the point, what he did was cherry picking. His start year is 1998 which was an exceptionally strong El Niño year, that alone will influence the temperature trend line for such a short period. Considering he’s in the long-term weather prediction business he should know this.
THEIR CLAIM that this pause was “something we (CO2 warmists) expected” is a brazen lie. They expected ‘runaway warming’
Yes, periods for which there is a lower warming trend of the surface temperature record aren’t exactly a surprise when they happen. It has happened before, so it will happen again. The IPCC also never projected runaway warming in their reports.
THEIR STATEMENT that the world has warmed over the last 30 years or so is merely an expression of the natural solar-lunar 60yr cycle of temperatures (and Pacific circulation) explained by WeatherAction in 2008 and nothing to do with CO2.
Utter nonsense, the sun has nothing to do with the rise in temperature:
The oceans also cannot cause warming in the atmosphere and gain heat at the same time. Something has to be putting more energy into our climate for that to have any effect, as without more energy the long-term trend would be zero.
And I’m not even going to bother addressing the claim of the moon influencing global temperatures as there isn’t a link.
THEIR CLAIM that alleged CO2 warming due to a small rise in the atmospheric concentration (0.04%) of the trace gas, CO2, is somehow hidden in the deep ocean is scientific cretinism beyond reason, fact or observation.
Something being a small part of the atmosphere doesn’t mean it can’t have a big effect. Atmospheric concentrations CFCs are measured in the parts per trillion, CO2 is measure in parts per million. Yet CFCs are responsible for the hole in the ozone layer.
Also the claim that the warming is going into the deep ocean isn’t “scientific cretinism beyond reason, fact or observation” because it is factual as it’s what we’re measuring:
THE CO2 “theory” has no predictive powers in weather or climate and while all it’s dire warnings have failed and it’s supposed scientific basis has been shown to be lacking the prognoses of the EVIDENCE-BASED Solar-Lunar science of WeatherAction and others over the last 7 years have been vindicated.
Again quite removed from reality as this isn’t an accurate reflection of what the IPCC claims and what’s in the scientific literature. But I’ve come to expect these kinds of non-factual statements from Corbyn.
So when he closes with this (exact quote from his website, I didn’t alter it):
IN THE NAME OF SCIENCE THE UN IPCC and all it stands for must be destroyed.
I can only say that I disagree with him. First he needs to show that he actually has a point and doesn’t ignore scientific findings before he can make such a bold statement and expect to be taking serious.